GRA wrote:...Again, why should you be forced to push if there's no need? What is in dispute is the rationale for SCs - are they to be so spaced so that people must navigate from one to the next by flight planning, or do we want them spaced so that the average person, who simply doesn't have to bother with that in an ICE, can just get in their BEV and drive, knowing that the refueling infrastructure will be there regardless of how their plans or conditions may change? If BEVs are to become mainstream, it must be the latter.

Sure, more would always be better. However, the cost is considerable and there are other places besides Granby and Estes Park that I would consider higher priority — for example Burns OR, or some similar location. As National Parks and Monuments go, Rocky Mountain NP is now pretty well covered. How about Hanksville UT or Torrey UT (Capitol Reef NP)? I'd also like to see the trans Canada highway filled in, even though the middle part likely wouldn't get much traffic and I, personally, wouldn't use it.

Would I like to see US 550, which I used to get from Farmington to Albuquerque, covered better (Supercharger Station in Cuba NM)? Sure. But don't forget that my car is quite a bit lower range than any Tesla produced in recent years, including the coming Model 3SR, so all others would have an even easier time than I had. I simply point out that it isn't all that difficult to do longer trip legs without your artificial constraints. You can suggest that one shouldn't charge to near 100% but as long as one does so right before leaving, and the car doesn't remain at a high SOC, it shouldn't harm the battery in any significant way. Same with driving down to 5% — charge up over 20% right away and don't worry about it. The car is intended to be used, not kept in a museum.

Yes, I'd like to see Supercharger Stations in every town and at every freeway exit, the way gas stations are located now. That isn't going to happen, for the time being. Nevertheless, I am amazed at how widespread and easy to use the current Supercharger network is. You can look for reasons to avoid EVs because the charging infrastructure isn't perfect for your use case and that of some other drivers. I will continue to enjoy using it as best I can right now and be pleased as each new addition makes yet another trip even easier. In my opinion, and that of some other Tesla drivers, Supercharger road trips are downright fun, not some daunting obstacle to be overcome only when absolutely necessary.

There are some trips that can't be done in current EVs — I can't do Imogene Pass, 13,114 feet, because it requires a high ground clearance vehicle but, then, a Subaru couldn't do it either. I can, however, drive to Tucson, San Diego, Yellowstone, or Seattle, with ease, no "flight planning" necessary — the car knows where all the needed charging stops are and how much charge is needed to get to the next one. That's plenty good enough for me.

GRA wrote:...Again, why should you be forced to push if there's no need? What is in dispute is the rationale for SCs - are they to be so spaced so that people must navigate from one to the next by flight planning, or do we want them spaced so that the average person, who simply doesn't have to bother with that in an ICE, can just get in their BEV and drive, knowing that the refueling infrastructure will be there regardless of how their plans or conditions may change? If BEVs are to become mainstream, it must be the latter.

Sure, more would always be better. However, the cost is considerable and there are other places besides Granby and Estes Park that I would consider higher priority — for example Burns OR, or some similar location. As National Parks and Monuments go, Rocky Mountain NP is now pretty well covered. How about Hanksville UT or Torrey UT (Capitol Reef NP)? I'd also like to see the trans Canada highway filled in, even though the middle part likely wouldn't get much traffic and I, personally, wouldn't use it.

You know from my TMC post that both Hanksville and Torrey (and a lot of others in the Four Corners area) are on my wish list. Trans-Canada also needs to be done, but at least it looks like they're getting the I-94/29 to Winnipeg leg done first, and as the Winnipeg metro area has a greater population than the entire state of North Dakota (and Fargo's the biggest city), that will at least open one route south and east off the Canadian plains, if indirect. Connecting Winnipeg/Regina etc. to Calgary and Edmonton should probably precede Thunder Bay and points east.

dgpcolorado wrote:Would I like to see US 550, which I used to get from Farmington to Albuquerque, covered better (Supercharger Station in Cuba NM)? Sure. But don't forget that my car is quite a bit lower range than any Tesla produced in recent years, including the coming Model 3SR, so all others would have an even easier time than I had. I simply point out that it isn't all that difficult to do longer trip legs without your artificial constraints. You can suggest that one shouldn't charge to near 100% but as long as one does so right before leaving, and the car doesn't remain at a high SOC, it shouldn't harm the battery in any significant way. Same with driving down to 5% — charge up over 20% right away and don't worry about it. The car is intended to be used, not kept in a museum.

More power to you if you choose to use it that way; others will have no wish to. One of the earliest owner recommendations for no worries range was 2/3rd of rated miles, and I think that's a good starting point from which people can adjust for their own personal driving style and conditions .

As for likely ranges of the Model 3 SR, did you see C&D's range test of the LR @ 75 mph? I'm not sure that your statement about the SR's much longer range (degradation aside) will be valid:

The high recommended tire pressure of 45 psi seems partially to blame for this racket, but letting some air out would result in a decrease in efficiency and driving range.

That latter metric, although a crucial one for any EV, is prone to such a large degree of variability that it’s difficult to gauge exactly how disappointing the Model 3’s result is in our real-world 75-mph highway fuel-economy test. Our calculated range of 200 miles is far below the EPA’s overall estimates of 310 miles in combined driving and 293 miles in highway driving, but it was certainly affected by the 28-degree-Fahrenheit ambient temperature. Two similar tests of a Chevy Bolt, the Model 3’s closest EV competitor, revealed a difference in observed range of more than 25 percent between a 56-degree and a 36-degree run (190 miles versus 140 miles against an EPA-estimated highway range of 217 miles).

As stated this is at 75 mph at relatively cold temps, and slower speeds should do better (varies from about 30 miles less/5 mph at slower speeds down to about 15 miles/5 mph at higher ones when using heat in the S), but cold temps can be encountered in mountainous areas almost year round - I saw 23 degrees@ 7:00 am in September of 2016 at Tuolumne Meadows (8,600') and got snowed on lightly that afternoon, and I often see teens in mid-Octobe, especially on the east side. I've run EVtripplanner ranges through Yosemite for the S60 at 0, 32, 50, and 70 degrees, using heat when needed, and that really sucks the range. The Model 3 cabin is smaller than the , and it's not a hatchback so it shouldn't use as much power for HVAC, and hopefully anyone who's worried about that drain is going to avoid the pano roof.

dgpcolorado wrote:Yes, I'd like to see Supercharger Stations in every town and at every freeway exit, the way gas stations are located now. That isn't going to happen, for the time being. Nevertheless, I am amazed at how widespread and easy to use the current Supercharger network is. You can look for reasons to avoid EVs because the charging infrastructure isn't perfect for your use case and that of some other drivers. I will continue to enjoy using it as best I can right now and be pleased as each new addition makes yet another trip even easier. In my opinion, and that of some other Tesla drivers, Supercharger road trips are downright fun, not some daunting obstacle to be overcome only when absolutely necessary.

I'm not looking for reasons to avoid BEVs, the reasons exist and currently rule them out for me. Once that's no longer the case, I can consider them more positively for myself and people who have similar requirements. For those without those requirements, I'm happy to recommend them when they are a good fit, and as BEV range, affordability and charging infrastructure all improve I'm willing to recommend them to an ever growing number of people, far more than was the case with sub-100 mile cars.

dgpcolorado wrote:There are some trips that can't be done in current EVs — I can't do Imogene Pass, 13,114 feet, because it requires a high ground clearance vehicle but, then, a Subaru couldn't do it either. I can, however, drive to Tucson, San Diego, Yellowstone, or Seattle, with ease, no "flight planning" necessary — the car knows where all the needed charging stops are and how much charge is needed to get to the next one. That's plenty good enough for me.

As I posted on TMC and here, I still can't visit a lot of the "Four Corners" area that I had in ICEs, barring hunting out RV parks and other places I have no wish to spend my precious recreational time in; I want to get to Glacier as well, but can't do that yet either, and I'm holding off that and other out-of-state trips until I can. I just wish that my holding off hadn't already been forced to stretch over 5 years, and looks like it may go a few more yet.

Guy [I have lots of experience designing/selling off-grid AE systems, some using EVs but don't own one. Local trips are by foot, bike and/or rapid transit].

The 'best' is the enemy of 'good enough'.Copper shot, not Silver bullets.

GRA wrote:...More power to you if you choose to use it that way; others will have no wish to. One of the earliest owner recommendations for no worries range was 2/3rd of rated miles, and I think that's a good starting point from which people can adjust for their own personal driving style and conditions .

As for likely ranges of the Model 3 SR, did you see C&D's range test of the LR @ 75 mph? I'm not sure that your statement about the SR's much longer range (degradation aside) will be valid: ...

The Model 3 SR will have significantly longer range than my car, better efficiency at higher speeds, and faster Supercharging. Over the trip leg I was talking about — Farmington to Albuquerque — one doesn't (usually) go "75 mph" and the consistently high altitude stretches range beyond what one would normally expect. Interstate highways, where 75 and 80 mph speed limits are common, tend to have Supercharger Stations plenty close enough for a Model 3 SR to blast along without difficulty.

I mentioned it in a previous post, but here's a Tesla driver's eye view of a trip leg:

In this case the nav system had originally estimated that I would arrive with 38% but two thirds of the way through the trip leg the estimate had increased to 42%, due to relatively slow speeds of mostly 45 to 60 mph and moderately high altitude (9970' to 4600'), meaning reduced drag. This estimate adjusts in real time based on the actual energy used compared to the original projection and will advise a slower speed, if necessary, to make the destination. The map plot zooms in on the destination automatically as one approaches it, no fussing with it needed. It makes road trip legs quite easy. Navigation can be initiated by voice command: "Navigate to Gateway Colorado."

It appears that Colorado agrees with my take and is going to build out virtually all the routes/sites on my wish list, so the need for Tesla to build SCs on these is much reduced. They'll be 150 kW CCS/CHAdeMO, so Tesla's CHAdeMO adapter will be needed and won't put out full power unless they upgrade the design. See GCC:

Among the wider implications of QCs in Estes Park, Grandby, Empire [Georgetown] and Vail is that QC-equipped sub-100 mile BEVs based anywhere in the Denver Metro area can easily access Rocky Mtn. NP with a single QC in Estes Park or do the loop through it (Denver/Estes Park/Granby/Empire [Georgetown] or vice versa) with two or three, and they can also reach all the downhill resorts on or near I-70 with QC'ing in Empire [Georgetown] (including destination charging at the resorts in some cases), or use Vail as well for the resorts there or west of it.

Last edited by GRA on Sat Apr 21, 2018 2:28 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Guy [I have lots of experience designing/selling off-grid AE systems, some using EVs but don't own one. Local trips are by foot, bike and/or rapid transit].

The 'best' is the enemy of 'good enough'.Copper shot, not Silver bullets.

This Farmington to Albuquerque route is the one I travel the most in my non local driving although I start in Colorado so the one-way distance is about 250 miles. I figure on adding a 10-15 minute stop in Farmington to make the trip in a Model 3 SR. Since we stop for 5-10 minutes anyway in an ICE, the net additional travel time is around 5 minutes.

THAT is what a Tesla allows. Today.

I would hate to drive that trip in a '18 LEAF with its crippled DCFC. Of course it is not possible since there are no DCFC along the entire route.

GRA wrote:Now they need to get started on Estes Park so it's ready by summer, and they also need one in Granby or Grand Lake to provide access to R.M. N.P. from the other end of Trail Ridge road. I see they've also got permits for the I-94/I-29 to Winnipeg route, at long last.

You will be pleased to learn that Tesla has had a "stealth" Supercharger Station under construction at Estes Park (at the Stanley Hotel). According to those who found it, all that remains is the installation of the transformer:

I thought that Bjørn did a good job with those etiquette suggestions. Most are common sense but several might be unknown to new owners, such as the stall pairing and advice not to charge to 100% — I've come across owners who didn't know about stall pairing, for example.